The Netherlands Police is one of the largest real estate users and owners in the Netherlands, and runs a very comprehensive accommodation programme. Their accommodation is an important and highly visible resource for the police and the general public. The police aims to increasingly use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ of its organisational objectives. The mission of the Police is ‘Unchanged, the police is “vigilant and subservient” to the values of the rule of law. The Police fulfils this mission by protecting, limiting or empowering depending on the situation, both solicited and unsolicited’.

Given the objectives and size of the real estate portfolio of the Netherlands police and given the social impact, size and visibility of the organisation, the police continuously wants to develop as a leading commissioner. In 2021, the Netherlands Police and the chair Public Real Estate of the department Management in the Built Environment of the faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment started a 6 year research cooperation. As part of this collaboration, a long term research project has started with the aim to better use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ for the organisation (development). The main project focuses on preference-based decision making for (parts) of the real estate portfolio. In this project, decision making is transparent, gives insights in the effects of potential real estate strategies and in all values (quantitative & qualitative) have been made measurable.

Next to that, short-term research projects are conducted. The first study focused on campus development for a specific police unit. This second study focuses on the location choices of (national) police organisations. We are pleased to present the results and are grateful for the cooperation of the police organisations in Norway, Germany and Belgium.

Purpose
The shift to hybrid work, broadly defined as the transition between traditional and non-traditional work modes enabled by digital technologies, has profoundly impacted university campuses, which function both as educational institutions and major employment centres. Despite their significance, adapting hybrid work models within universities remains under-explored in academic research. This study aims to investigate how university real estate support teams perceive challenges stemming from the adoption of hybrid work.

Design/methodology/approach
Through thematic content analysis, a narrative review of 27 studies identified three dimensions of challenges: spatial challenges in campus planning from a real estate perspective, psychosocial challenges for employees and organisational challenges shaping spatial strategies. In total, 12 higher-level spatial challenges were identified and discussed in a Delphi workshop involving representatives from 12 of the 14 Dutch universities. Group discussions revealed three additional challenges not identified in the literature review.

Findings
Through three rounds of prioritisation, the five most critical challenges emerged: preventing resistance to changes, balancing employee autonomy and control, supporting individual and group needs, accommodating diverse work types and individual preferences and managing underutilised space without overcrowding.

Practical implications
Co-creating university spaces between real estate teams and campus employees, coupled with extended change management periods, seems crucial for stakeholder engagement and successful transitions. These findings highlight an urgent need for targeted research and context-specific strategies to navigate hybrid work within university frameworks.

Originality/value
This paper’s originality lies in addressing the often-overlooked influence of hybrid work on university staff within campus spatial planning. It identifies the most critical challenges in spatial planning in implementing hybrid work in university campus settings.

Purpose
To plan the future university campus, campus executives need decision-making support from theory and practice. Matching the static campus (supply) with the dynamic (demand) - while safeguarding spatial quality and sustainability - requires management information from similar organizations. This study presents an evidence-based briefing approach to support decision-makers of individual universities with management information when making decisions for their future campus.

Design/methodology/approach
For the proposed evidence-based briefing approach, the continuous Designing an Accommodation Strategy (DAS) framework is used in a mixed-method research design to evaluate the past to plan for the future. Five campus themes and three campus models (solid, liquid, and gas) are introduced to describe the development and diversification of university campuses and their impact across different university building types. Based on this theoretical framework, first, qualitative interview data are analyzed to understand which standards campus managers expect; second, a quantitative project database is used to demonstrate what is actually realized.

Findings
The findings demonstrate that remote working and online education will become more common. Academic workplaces and learning environments are more adaptive to changes than laboratory spaces. The analyses reveal different effective space use strategies to meet the current demand: they include space-efficient mixed-use buildings, and mono-functional generic educational and office spaces. These results show that operationalized evidence-based briefing can help design the future campus.

Originality/value
The study adds knowledge during a critical (post-COVID) period when decision-makers need evidence from others to adapt their campus management strategies to hybrid and sustainable ambitions.

The escalating significance of knowledge exchange in diverse industries is owed to its potential to enhance business performance. Although numerous theoretical frameworks have been applied to understand and measure knowledge exchange within and between firms, a notable gap remains in measuring inter-organisational knowledge exchange among horizontally-linked firms in the same sector. This research endeavours to fill this gap by proposing a comprehensive survey grounded in theory and practice for assessing knowledge exchange among 14 universities in the Netherlands. Drawing from inputs from campus managers and established theory-based evaluation methods, four key elements were identified: organizational context, enablers and disablers, processes, and outcome expectations. This synthesis aims to offer insights into how knowledge exchange dynamics can be gauged between firms. By gaining insights into the intricacies of inter-organisational knowledge exchange through the survey developed in this study, organisations would be able to adopt more informed strategies, fostering collaborative environments and ultimately optimising the efficiency of knowledge exchange processes between organisations in the same sector.

Dilemma’s rond hybride werken en on- en off-campus studeren zijn slechts twee van de grote uitdagingen waarvoor universiteiten staan. Andere collectieve opgaven zijn de grote aantallen instromende studenten (maar mogelijk ook krimp), de krappe (studenten)- woningmarkt, verduurzaming en een gezond werkklimaat. Crises waaronder de coronapandemie, torenhoge energieprijzen, materiaalschaarste en personeelstekort hebben de urgentie om campuskennis te delen alleen nog maar versterkt. Onderzoeksproject Campus NL brengt inzichten uit theorie en praktijk bij elkaar, met als doel het campusmanagement aan elk van de veertien Nederlandse universiteiten (nog) e!ectiever en efficiënter te kunnen organiseren.

On university campuses today, influenced by large-scale trends and challenges, knowledge exchange is important because universities pursue similar goals and can solve common challenges with each other’s help. In addition, “learning from each other” and “data collection for knowledge generation” fit the education and research functions of the institutions. As university campuses face similar challenges in different locations, knowledge exchange enables campus managers to draw on shared experiences and best practices, promoting cooperation and innovation between universities. […]

The built environment significantly contributes to current socioenvironmental crises, necessitating systemic change. Circularity and the commons are re-emerging as potential pathways for such transition. A circular built environment (CBE) aims to close resource loops, but its implementation is often slow and neglects social and local aspects. The commons framework emphasizes local involvement and sustainable self-management of shared resources. However, the intersection of circularity and the commons in spatial production is underexplored. This paper explores their relationship as “innate spatial tactics,” referring to the ways ordinary people interact with the built environment to meet their daily needs. Through a literature review, we developed a conceptual framework of “circular commoning,” encompassing three dimensions: resources, people, and governance. We applied this framework to analyze 16 empirical examples of circular commoning in contemporary urban settings. Our research shows that circularity and the commons are closely linked and mutually beneficial. Circular commoning involves diverse resources, changing social roles, and innovative governance. We identified three forms of circular commoning as innate spatial tactics: building circular, circular use of space, and creating spaces for circular activities. The framework developed here provides a basis for further action research. The practice review demonstrates that circular commoning is not only a distant utopian ideal but is enacted daily in diverse urban contexts. Such often-overlooked innate spatial tactics can offer valuable lessons for pathways toward a CBE involving principles of a circular society. Additionally, they can help shape new narratives and channel hope for practical progress towards circular futures.

Universities experience similar challenges related to hybrid working, climate change, student accommodation, and so on. One of the aims of Campus NL is to pool the resources and knowledge of the 14 Dutch universities to solve these problems jointly and efficiently. This requires learning from others rather than reinventing the wheel or solving individual challenges. To facilitate this process, Campus NL will closely link science and practice to make inter-university learning easier. [...]

Knowledge transfer in campus management has a decades-long history in the Netherlands, ever since the Dutch (research) universities became owners of their university buildings and land in the nineties. The shared challenges have urged universities to join forces and exchange insights about their solutions. One of those pressing challenges has been sustainability. Since 2008, long-term agreements on energy-efficiency have become effective in the Netherlands for various sectors. Higher education was one of these sectors and - as a result - universities have developed sustainable visions and road maps for their campuses. At the same time, universities started to improve inter-university knowledge exchange, in general and about sustainability in particular.

Knowledge transfer from theory to practice, from practice to practice, and from practice back to theory, has built a knowledge base with scientific and societal relevance and benefits for academia and professional campus management. Over the years, inter-university networks have given many new and valuable insights to support (sustainable) campus decision making. This presentation/paper combines findings from past campus research with new findings - from Neva Wardenaar's research - about the different existing networks, drivers, barriers, and tools of knowledge sharing between universities, providing an answer to the main research question: “How can inter-university knowledge transfer support university campus managers to achieve the universities’ sustainability goals?”. Wardenaar's research also served as exploratory research for (and before) the larger inter-university Campus NL research (2023-2027) by TU Delft's Campus Research Team.

Through an extensive literature review, ten in-depth semi-structured interviews, strategy-analysis, and observations, Wardenaar's research concludes that universities have similar (sustainability) goals and that, by working together, they might accelerate the (decision-making) process of achieving these goals. Collectively, universities can acquire more funds, receive more guidance and get insights into what others are doing. This research provides an overview of the barriers and drivers of knowledge transfer that campus managers (working on the energy transition) are experiencing and contributes to the debate of knowledge transfer and (sustainable) campus management, with lessons beyond Campus NL.

Purpose
Corporate real estate management (CREM) is complex due to an increasing number of real estate (RE) added values and the tensions between them. RE managers are faced with trade-offs: to choose a higher performance for one added value at the cost of another. CREM research mainly deals with trade-offs in a hypothetical sense, without looking at the characteristics of the RE portfolio nor the specific context in which trade-offs are made. The purpose of this paper is to further develop the concept of real estate value (REV) optimisation with regard to tensions between decreasing CO2 emissions and supporting user activities.

Design/methodology/approach
Mixed method study. REV optimisation between user activities and energy efficiency for police stations in the Netherlands built between 2000 and 2020 is analysed. This is complemented by interviews with an RE manager and senior user of police stations and analysis of policy documents.

Findings
The characteristics of the police station portfolio indicate no correlation between user activities and energy efficiency for the case studied. This is complemented by interviews, from which it becomes clear that there was in fact little tension between supporting user activities and energy efficiency. The performances of these two different added values were optimised separately.

Originality/value
This study combines different scales (building and portfolio level) with different types of data: portfolio analysis, document analysis and interviews. This creates a comprehensive image of whether and how the Netherlands police optimised the two RE values.

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, an increasing number of individuals are expected to engage in remote work. Consequently, the hybrid working paradigm, characterized by a combination of office-based and remote work, is gaining prominence. Despite the governments awareness of this phenomenon, comprehensive policy framework remains absent, leaving determinations to the discretion of individual sectors and entities. Whereas studies focused on diverse sectors in this matter, not much is known regarding hybrid working within the university environment. This study is part of the Campus NL project, aiming to investigate management and strategies across all the 14 universities in the Netherlands. The specific focus of this study was to examine hybrid working and its ramifications within the university landscape in the Netherlands. We asked universities to provide us with information concerning policies and financial allocations related to hybrid working, spatial utilization, energy consumption, and prospective strategies related to sustainability and mobility. Furthermore, we aimed not solely to delineate the present state of hybrid working within Dutch universities but also to enhance future strategies in this domain to provide a better working space in the universities.

Introduction: The challenge of the energy transition in the built environment has, in recent years, been exacerbated by rising awareness of the material resource limitations we face on the path towards sustainable development. In this context the concepts of Circular Economy (CE) and Product-Service Systems (PSS) have emerged as potentially complementary industrial and business strategies to overcome the interdependent material resource and clean energy challenges.

Research significance: Research in the field of circular and PSS-based construction frequently centres on the design and engineering of products, mainly through technical strategies such as design for disassembly and adaptability, and the use of the different “R’s” (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, etc.) to extend and/or reset the service lives of building materials and components. Such an approach often ignores the fact that these strategies require changes in the management, financing, and governance aspects of products and therefore buildings, throughout their entire service-lives. This paper will focus on the systemic administrative (i.e. management, financing, and governance) challenges of the circular and servitisation transitions in the building and construction sector, to enable products which are “Circular by Design”, to effectively support regenerative processes.

Research question: The paper asks how traditional building products’ management, financing, and governance processes prevent or delay the implementation of CE and PSS models. It explores the demand side’s perspective (commissioners, building owners and facility managers), taking a systemic view to the search for new practical, strategic, and scalable administrative models.

Methodology: The research method applies the DAS model (De Jonge et al., 2009; Van der Zwart et al., 2009; den Heijer, 2011; den Heijer et al., 2016) to data gathered from focus group discussion and co-design sessions involving multidisciplinary teams of experts from both academy and industry, as well as literature. The research was conducted within the context of the TU Delft Facades-as-a-Service full-scale pilot project.

Results: The research has shown that, while PSS models to enable material circularity can be partially implemented within the current managerial, financial, and governance framework, this implementation is not efficient, effective, or scalable. This is because standard modes of operation in these disciplines are misaligned with that goal. The practical barriers resulting from this misalignment increase the complexity, risk perception, and therefore cost of PSS alternatives, and thus prevent their organic adoption despite increasing market interest. Recommendations are made for policymakers, financiers, suppliers, and building owners to overcome these barriers.

Campus decision makers are increasingly expected to adopt ‘campus innovations’ (affecting real estate and different facilities), not only from the market and demand-led (external campus innovations), but also developed by the university's own scientists (internal campus innovations). The adoption of the latter can be driven and hindered by many unique factors that campus decision makers have not dealt with before. To provide insight into them, qualitative data were collected from 13 out of 14 Dutch research-intensive universities. The results indicate that internal campus innovations are driven by co-creation stimulation, collaborative partnership, transparency and accountability, and local development contribution. Their adoption, however, may be obstructed by barriers embedded in the interaction between campus decision makers and scientists, organizational university context, funds unavailability and innovations' supply-pushed characteristics. An increased understanding of these barriers and the practices to overcome them is crucial for universities' campus decision makers to actively engage in the adoption of internal campus innovations.

Internationally, the ambition to achieve a sustainable built environment is becoming urgent. On the university campus, this vision, combined with unparalleled access to innovative technologies for sustainable development enables/urges universities to implement more innovative solutions more often. As a prime test location, the university campus is uniquely able to serve as a context for living labs, implementing and testing innovative technologies in a real-world environment. However, implementation of innovation on campus requires a clear vision, intentional action and transdisciplinary collaboration, while innovations themselves pose several challenges to the business-as-usual way of work. To explore the role of campus real estate managers in innovation implementation decisions on the university campus, a literature review and a qualitative study among campus managers of 13 Dutch universities were conducted. The research explored the innovation project types, risks, drivers and barriers and the real estate management responsibilities and decision criteria in innovation implementation projects. As one of the outputs of this research, a comprehensive categorization framework was developed. It clarifies campus managers’ decision-making dimensions for innovative sustainability project implementation on campus and highlights the sustainability objectives unique to universities. If implemented across universities, it could further strengthen the networked economy by identifying opportunities for cross-campus implementation of innovative projects for sustainability.

Campus as inter-disciplinary technological playground for sustainable technology experiments and implementation is a dream TU Delft strives for. However, innovation implementation on the university campus is nonetheless considered a risk due to the embedded uncertainty of any innovation. This uncertainty leads to several questions about the decisions to implement innovations on campus. Answering this question is the motivation behind this study, aimed at enabling effective implementation of innovation on our campus. We identified the decision making criteria used by a variety of employees who regularly face innovation implementation challenges on campus on campus.

We used two decision support systems to identify and explain the relative importance of the decision making criteria. The first approach was executed by a TU Delft spin-off Councyl.ai. Councyl.ai’s decision support model was built to identify the decision-making criteria and then through a choice experiment identify the relative weight of those criteria.

In a second approach, the PAS design and decision approach, developed by Prof. Monique Arkesteijn from TU Delft (2019), was used to develop the decision framework and relative importance of each criteria.

This project has been successful in distilling the most important criteria used during implicit assessment of innovation projects on campus, a great achievement in itself. However these two approaches do not indicate the same relative weight of the decision-making criteria, suggesting that innovation projects are very diverse and the importance of criteria change along with the project description and context for implementation.

This brings us one step closer to clearly communicating to innovators and amongst ourselves which decision-making criteria are implicitly taken into consideration for implementation of innovation on campus. It clarifies the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate risk, and increase the likelihood of innovators registering their interest in placing their innovations on campus, as well as the likelihood that campus managers will allocate the necessary resources to the project.

We trust this report, in conjunction with the other research projects run at the Campus research team, will be beneficial in providing the necessary support for decision making about sustainable innovation on the university campus. Making the campus a reputable technological showroom of every aspirational clean energy, climate adaptive and circular innovation on the TU Delft campus and beyond.

Purpose
The objective of stadium owners is to attract visitors to their stadiums and by this optimally use their business potential. Stadiums face increasing competition from home-viewing options, with which especially aging stadiums have trouble competing. This paper aims to study the concept of smart stadiums as a solution to this problem, adding the corona age as an additional challenge.

Design/methodology/approach
First, (smart) stadium literature and theories are reviewed. Then, a case study is conducted, consisting of document review, observations and semi-structured interviews with specialists. The case that is studied is the Johan Cruijff Arena in Amsterdam – the stadium has the ambition to be the most innovative stadium in 2020.

Findings
Nine different smart tools were identified in the case study, which supports the optimization of various processes in the stadium such as ticketing and crowd control. The findings from this case study showed the potential of the smart stadium concept and how it can add value for the stadium’s stakeholders. The use of smart tools can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of stadium operations, and it can be used to improve the visitors’ experience. However, concrete numbers of progress were difficult to obtain because the smart tools were only recently implemented.

Originality/value
As seen in the past few years, more and more stadiums are branding themselves as a smart stadium. However, research on this subject is still scarce: existing research focused on other types of real estate. By exploring the work done in theory and practice, the authors hope to increase research on the subject of smart stadiums.

Purpose: Across the world, many universities are dealing with a pressure on resources, caused by both organisational developments and ageing campuses. Space utilization studies have a strategic role, providing information on how space is being used, thereby informing decisions about the type and scale of facilities that are needed. Design/methodology/approach: This study reports on the space use measurements conducted at TU Delft over the past five years, complemented by their use to make decisions about the university's real estate portfolio. Findings: The education spaces of the university are found to perform well in terms of frequency rates and can be improved in terms of occupancy rates. The information helped to support short- and long-term decision-making. The study places of the university have a satisfactory occupancy in some types of study places, while in others there is room for improvement. More research is needed here to understand the relationship between space norms and space use. Practical implications: The space utilization studies have supported discussions with the student council and decision makers on which interventions are required and which current facilities meet students' needs best. Originality/value: Not much space utilisation studies are reported in the academic literature, and those that do have several limitations. This study may serve as a best practice for benchmarking by other universities and as evidence in other research for the planned and actual use of university facilities.

Na de verwoestende brand van het geliefde maar verouderde Bouwkundegebouw aan de Berlageweg in 2008, was de grootste uitdaging om de veelkleurige community weer een nieuw thuis te bieden. Een gebouw dat paste bij de identiteit van de faculteit, maar ook een gebouw dat groot genoeg was om te passen. Vanaf dag één hebben studenten en medewerkers - maar ook vaste gasten en eenmalige bezoekers - het gebouw aan de Julianalaan omarmd. Samen gaven zij nieuw leven aan academisch erfgoed dat nog maar net verlaten was door de universiteit. Generaties van BK-alumni en TU Delft-veteranen kwamen met grote groepen langs om ”BK City” te bewonderen en anekdotes te vertellen over de functies die het gebouw had gehad vanaf de bouw in de jaren 1920, nu honderd jaar geleden. Van opslag voor oorlogsmaterieel tot innovatief rekencentrum. Een plek waar iedere TU-student een collegekaart ophaalde, waar de struikelvakken van menig curriculum werden gedoceerd en waar het College van Bestuur de universiteit nog top-down bestuurde. Een gebouw met zoveel historie dwingt respect af en heeft al honderd jaar bewezen multifunctioneel te zijn.

At the beginning of the 21st century many thought that bricks would be replaced by clicks on campus. However, the universities’ campus managers had a different story to tell. Indeed, there were more clicks to facilitate, but not to replace the bricks. The virtual campus would emerge, but the physical campus would stay. With increasing pressure on environmental and financial resources, strategic choices need to be made to preserve the university’s heritage and legacy, to accommodate the network organisations that universities have become and to support the mobile community that needs a home base to return to. The campus of the future is a combination of solid, liquid and gas. This metaphor from physics refers to three states of matter, resembling the traditional, network and virtual university. This book aims at reaching different kinds of stakeholders – policy makers, users, controllers, engineers, designers and other decision makers – by speaking their language and engaging them all in collectively shaping the campus of the future.